tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 10, 2016 3:23am-7:01am EDT
a good program, a new foundation for challenging and exciting progress. now, after 3 years of struggle, we have that program. the battle to secure america's energy future has been fully and finally joined. americans have cooperated with dramatic results. we've reversed decades of dangerous and growing dependence on foreign oil. we are now importing 20 percent less oil -- that is 1 1/2 million barrels of oil every day less than the day i took office. and with our new energy policy now in place, we can discover more, produce more, create more, and conserve more energy, and we will use american resources,
american technology, and millions of american workers to do it with. now, what do the republicans propose? basically, their energy program has two parts. the first part is to get rid of almost everything that we've done for the american public in the last 3 years. they want to reduce or abolish the synthetic fuels program. they want to slash the solar energy incentives, the conservation programs, aid to mass transit, aid to elderly americans to help pay their fuel bills. they want to eliminate the 55 -- mile speed limit. and while they are at it, the republicans would like to gut the clean air act. they never liked it to begin with.
that's one part of their program; the other part is worse. to replace what we have built, this is what they propose: to destroy the windfall profits tax and to "unleash" the oil companies and let them solve the energy problem for us. that's it. that is it. that's their whole program. there is no more. can this nation accept such an outrageous program? no! we democrats will fight it every step of the way, and we'll begin tomorrow morning with a campaign for reelection in november.
when i took office, i inherited a heavy load of serious economic problems besides energy, and we've met them all head -- on. we've slashed government regulations and put free enterprise back into the airlines, the trucking and the financial systems of our country, and we're now doing the same thing for the railroads. this is the greatest change in the relationship between government and business since the new deal. we've increased our exports dramatically. we've reversed the decline in the basic research and development, and we have created more than 8 million new jobs -- the biggest increase in the history of our country.
but the road is bumpy, and last year's skyrocketing opec price increases have helped to trigger a worldwide inflation crisis. we took forceful action, and interest rates have now fallen, the dollar is stable and, although we still have a battle on our hands, we're struggling to bring inflation under control. we are now at the critical point, a turning point in our economic history of our country. but because we made the hard decisions, because we have guided our nation and its economy through a rough but essential period of transition, we've laid the groundwork for a new economic age. our economic renewal program for the 1980's will meet our immediate need for jobs and attack the very same, long -- range problem that caused unemployment and inflation in
the first place. it'll move america simultaneously towards our five great economic goals -- lower inflation, better productivity, revitalization of american industry, energy security, and jobs. it's time to put all america back to work -- but not in make -- work, in real work. and there is real work in modernizing american industries and creating new industries for america as well. here are just a few things we'll rebuild together and build together:
-- new industries to turn our own coal and shale and farm products into fuel for our cars and trucks and to turn the light of the sun into heat and and electricity for our homes; -- a modern transportation system of railbeds and ports to make american coal into a powerful rival of opec oil; -- industries that will provide the convenience of futuristic computer technology and communications to serve millions of american homes and offices and factories; -- job training for workers displaced by economic changes; -- new investment pinpointed in regions and communities where jobs are needed most; -- better mass transit in our cities and in between cities; -- and a whole new generation of american jobs to make homes and
vehicles and buildings that will house us and move us in comfort with a lot less energy. this is important, too. i have no doubt that the ingenuity, and dedication of the american people can make every single one of these things happen. we are talking about the united states of america, and those who count this country out as an economic superpower are going to find out just how wrong they are. we're going to share in the exciting enterprise of making the 1980's a time of growth for america.
the republican alternative is the biggest tax giveaway in history. they call it reagan-kemp-roth. i call it a free lunch that americans cannot afford. the republican tax program offers rebates to the rich, deprivation for the poor, and fierce inflation for all of us. their party's own vice presidential nominee said that reagan-kemp-roth would result in an inflation rate of more than 30 percent. he called it "voodoo economics". he suddenly changed his mind toward the end of the republican convention, but he was right the
first time. along with this gigantic tax cut, the new republican leaders promise to protect retirement and health programs and to have massive increases in defense spending -- and they claim they can balance the budget. if they are serious about these promises, and they say they are, then a close analysis shows that the entire rest of the government would have to be abolished, everything from education to farm programs, from the g.i. bill to the night watchman at the lincoln memorial -- and their budget would still be in the red.
the only alternative would be to build more printing presses to print cheap money. either way, the american people lose. but the american people will not stand for it. the democratic party has always embodied the hope of our people for justice, opportunity, and a better life, and we've worked in every way possible to strengthen the american family, to encourage self-reliance, and to follow the old testament admonition: "defend the poor and the fatherless; give justice to the afflicted and needy." we've struggled to assure that no child in america ever goes to bed hungry, that no elderly couple in america has to live in a substandard home, and that no young person in america is excluded from college because
the family is poor. but what have the republicans proposed? -- just an attack on everything that we've done in the achievement of social justice and decency that we've won in the last 50 years, ever since franklin delano roosevelt's first term. they would make social security voluntary. they would reverse our progress on the minimum wage, full employment laws, safety in the work place, and a healthy environment. lately, as you know, the republicans have been quoting democratic presidents. but who can blame them? would you rather quote herbert hoover or franklin delano roosevelt?
would you rather quote richard nixon or john fitzgerald kennedy? the republicans have always been the party of privilege, but this year their leaders have gone even further. in their platform, they have repudiated the best traditions of their own party. where is the conscience of lincoln in the party of lincoln? what's become of their traditional republican commitment to fiscal responsibility? what's happened to their commitment to a safe and sane arms control? now, i don't claim perfection for the democratic party.
i don't claim that every decision that we have made has been right or popular; certainly, they've not all been easy. but i will say this: we've been tested under fire. we've neither ducked nor hidden, and we've tackled the great central issues of our time, the historic challenges of peace and energy, which have been ignored for years. we've made tough decisions, and we've taken the heat for them. we've made mistakes, and we've learned from them. but we have built the foundation now for a better future. we've done something else, perhaps even more important. in good times and bad, in the valleys and on the peaks, we've
told people the truth, the hard truth, the truth that sometimes hurts. one truth that we americans have learned is that our dream has been earned for progress and for peace. look what our land has been through within our own memory -- a great depression, a world war, a technological explosion, the civil rights revolution, the bitterness of vietnam, the shame of watergate, the twilight peace of nuclear terror. through each of these momentous
experiences, we've learned the hard way about the world and about ourselves. but we've matured and we've grown as a nation and we've grown stronger. we've learned the uses and the limitations of power. we've learned the beauty and responsibility of freedom. we've learned the value and the obligation of justice. and we have learned the necessity of peace. some would argue that to master these lessons is somehow to limit our potential. that is not so. a nation which knows its true strengths, which sees its true challenges, which understands legitimate constraints, that nation -- our nation -- is far stronger than one which takes refuge in wishful thinking or nostalgia.
the democratic party -- the american people -- have understood these fundamental truths. all of us can sympathize with the desire for easy answers. there's often the temptation to substitute idle dreams for hard reality. the new republican leaders are hoping that our nation will succumb to that temptation this year, but they profoundly misunderstand and underestimate the character of the american people. three weeks after pearl harbor, winston churchill came to north america and he said, "we have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, across the
oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy." we americans have courage. americans have always been on the cutting edge of change. we've always looked forward with anticipation and confidence. i still want the same thing that all of you want -- a self-reliant neighborhood, strong families, work for the able-bodied and good medical care for the sick, opportunity for our youth and dignity for our old, equal rights and justice for all people. i want teachers eager to explain what a civilization really is, and i want students to understand their own needs and their own aims, but also the
needs and yearnings of their neighbors. i want women free to pursue without limit the full life of what they want for themselves. i want our farmers growing crops to feed our nation and the world, secure in the knowledge that the family farm will thrive and with a fair return on the good work they do for all of us. i want workers to see meaning in the labor they perform and work enough to guarantee a job for every worker in this country. and i want the people in business free to pursue with boldness and freedom new ideas. and i want minority citizens
fully to join the mainstream of american life. and i want from the bottom of my heart to remove the blight of racial and other discrimination from the face of our nation, and i'm determined to do it. i need for all of you to join me in fulfilling that vision. the choice, the choice between the two futures, could not be more clear. if we succumb to a dream world , then we'll wake up to a nightmare. but if we start with reality and fight to make our dreams a reality, then americans will have a good life, a life of
and to finish work on the party's platform, which will be voted at the democratic month inn later this philadelphia. the unbinding document is a representation of the position on several foreign and domestic issues. here is a portion of yesterday's meeting and some of the debates occurred. amendment number 139 sponsored ,y benjamin kemper on page 11 line 41, the proposed amendment is as follows -- on page 11, line 41, strike the following: explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system and insert reform the civil asset forfeiture system to prohibit police from keeping assets seized during an alleged crime when their owners are not convicted of that crime. [applause]
>> just a second. can we hold on that and come back to that? they are asking us to come back to that. the next one please. number 164. >> on page 11, line 47, the proposed amendment is to insert on page 11 line 47 after the word addiction and mental health issues, the following. it also means building on effective models of drug courts, veterans courts, and other diversionary programs that seek to give low level and nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration. >> thank you. >> thank you.
i rise on behalf of supporting this amendment. like many here, i live in a state ravaged by the heroine and usoid crisis that is facing tragedy after tragedy. i spent years in the criminal justice system and i'm here to tell you we are not going to arrest our way out of this problem. [applause] my colleague from indiana spoke about more discretion and that is what this is about, giving people the tools they need. there are people, violent people, who belong in jail but there are a lot of people who don't need handcuffs, they just need a hand. we need to concentrate on the 55% of people who are locked up your eligible from substances -- for substance abuse treatment. we need veterans courts, drug courts. all of those rings are available. -- things are available.
>> is there a second? second. anyone speaking against this? we'll go to a vote. all in favor indicated by raising your hand. all opposed. five opposed. it is past. next amendment. what's we will be going back to amend and six -- amendment 66. paschalponsor is chuck on page 11, line 40. , we willsed amendment assist stays in providing a system of public defense that is adequately resourced. >> a parliamentary inquiry, i was told this was being accepted
into the draft. why it was withdrawn earlier. is that not correct? >> i was told that language is .ncorporated into the draft is that not correct? >> we do not have updated language. i will offer the amendment. one of the ways to make a criminal justice system more fair is to make sure there is adequate defense provided. throughout the country, there is is a system where some states fully fund a public defense system and some states like mine provide no funding at all.
which means that defendants do to lawyers who have caseloads that are manageable for it means that defendants don't have access to investigators and other things required to have a competent and quality defense to their criminal charges. this results in false convictions. fair publicave a defense system that will adequately defend those accused of crimes. >> is there anyone in opposition? opposition? if there is no opposition, it
will go to a vote. all in favor indicated by holding your cards up. all opposed. it passes. >> amendment number 60 sponsored .y dennis a dusty the proposed amendment is before line one, at the following. because of conflicting laws can turning marijuana, both on the hydro and state level, we encourage the federal government to remove marijuana from its list as a class one federal controlled substance, providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization. [applause] clerks of the sponsor has one minute. >> i was told earlier that this would be combined with number 35
that has similar wording for that day -- wording. >> why don't we said that aside? let's hold it and we will determine it. 60.5 and we need to have that question answered. in the meantime, is there an answer for that in the room? if not, we will hold it for now. it is similar language. to find outing whether there is agreement to this. so we can make a ruling.
60 is withdrawn. 35 -- 60 is withdrawn, and my hearing that right? thank you. what is the next amendment? >> thank you. amendment 35 sponsored by page 12, cramer on line five, the proposed amendment is page 12, line five after the word uncertainty, enter the following, we will also remove marijuana from the controlled substances act.
>> today, they're one is treated as a schedule one drug like heroine. regardless of your views, i don't think anyone in this room believes marijuana is as dangerous as heroine. the time has come to remove marijuana from the controlled substances act. it should be up to the states to decide whether to legalize their water or not. we need to rethink the war on drugs. -- legalize marijuana or not. we are arresting one marijuana user every minute but have not arrested one executive on wall street for causing the near collapse of the economy in 2008. that has got to change. veterans living in states with medical marijuana cannot get a prescription through the v.a. because it's still illegal federally. marijuana's classification was only supposed to be temporary when the law was passed in the
1970's. this is a long overdue change. states shouldink be able to do what they want with marijuana. >> are their opponents? are there seconds? are their opponents? the proponents go first. five minutes. >> a young lady in nashville was having over 500 seizures and month. vanderbilt university in the medical professions told her all they could do for her was a lobotomy or a do not resuscitate. the family was required to move to colorado and develop a strand called charlotte's web. this young lady today is down to
five she's yours a month -- seizures a month. she is four years old and she is working. the marijuana craze that nixon 1970's was anhe effort to suppress hippies and blacks. [applause] is time for law enforcement of the the perpetuation suppression of the minority communities and people without means. >> our jails are full. of people who have opiate you will see that when this legislation occurs, at
the state and local level, dropping the prohibitions against this natural product that you will see a reduction. we have historically proven the reduction in no be your it needs to be regulated and the criminal penalties need to come off this. i encourage support for this amendment. [applause] we are a medical marijuana state in new mexico. medical marijuana patient and you live in hud use yourou cannot prescribed medication in your own home. you cannot use it. marijuana is exponentially safer
than alcohol. [applause] we all know this. this is not on par with heroin. if you face toward the back of the audience you are not viewed by the public online. you got to do both. you have to turn this way. this is yet another way that low income disabled seniors and putrans are kept from being on medications that cause addictions. i personally was severely overmedicated and was housebound because of that area now with i am here.ijuana
i am representing my country. marijuana saves people's lives. >> i am from the state of colorado. we have all kinds of pot in colorado. rocky mount high. there are some unknown consequences of our federal law. there are children with cancer that are receiving some sort of medical marijuana that cannot be administered to them in school. lawad a law called jack's signed by our governor but because of funding issues that cannot be administered to them in public schools. these are children with cancer of the you rca -- you are saying can't go to school.
>> i appreciate the support for this amendment. especially the people that are trying to get jobs who have to check the box that they've been convicted of a crime. they need to be supported so that we are taking care of those people. >> time is up. opponents? five minutes for the opponents. i'm for illinois. i wanted to acknowledge my assistant from ohio because i am now a member of the new democratic party. what i am speaking to is my
opposition to this amendment. amendmented to this for two reasons. one of them is substantive but the other is principled. really reduces marijuana from all schedules. these legal policy changes to allow the marijuana research. we also support the movement on the schedule. to remove it completely we believe is not appropriate at this time. , in we have right now illinois we are now supporting medical marijuana. the states of taken the lead on this. there are other places that are
beginning to compile valuable information that will allow us to determine what should occur next. i suggest that we allowed the states to continue to take the lead. to resolve these issues. once we see what the results are the federal government make a move. (boo!!") once we agree on language. when the two parties in this new democratic party agree on language we need to stick with that language. we had an agreement come out of this. let's stay with those agreements. >> i am from the state of montana.
i fully support legalization. the current law in the platform has been accepted already to support the policies that allow for more research and reforming laws to allow medical marijuana businesses to exist. i think that is the language that we need to stick to. the problem with this is, unlike the withdrawn amendment that removed it simply from a schedule one drug, this removes it from all schedules. with you think it should go to a different schedule for regulation or what do you think it should come off altogether and go to fda regulation, it is an important fundamental issue. intost throw it out there a completely unmarked area is not a good idea. the current language is the appropriate one. but against this amendment. ("boo!") >> i would like to offer
amendments number 60 as a secondary amendment to replace number 35. case, 15 seconds for that. you know have a minute to describe it. -- you now have a minute to describe. you have already heard a number of the arguments. because there are conflicting laws, at the federal and state urge the federal government to remove marijuana from its list as a class one federal controlled substance. there is no reason that we need to be penalizing people.
>> this is the secondary amendment number 60? we'll have the people speaking in favor of this. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. is this an order right now? >> they have agreed to this. to five, one of your five. >> what did you withdraw? in other words, the one you agree to you withdrew. i think they are introducing one that no one has agreed to.
the two campaigns have agreed to five amendments that they could a marijuanalso isndment so my understanding that they have done that and i was wondering if this is actually an order. >> we will take a minute to answer that question. but just a minute. >> under normal circumstances we would not take this up. but because you are claiming this is one of the five that was previously agreed to which i believe leaves you with three we you topared to to allow offer it and you have offered it
and it has been spoken to. there are 15 sponsors. under the circumstances we are going to allow it has one of the five under the prior agreement. >> you now have five minutes to speak in favor of the secondary amendment. >> i am from the state of nevada. it is time to end uncertainty between state laws and federal laws. it is time to allow teachers who may need to medicaid not feel threatened that they will lose their jobs. in my state of nevada, it is toe for individuals to want get a gaming license to be able to do so. while using medical marijuana without. >> one moment please. we need the right amendment up.
60. >> we need a reasonable pathway for future legislation regarding marijuana in this country. we have two systems of criminal justice regarding marijuana right now. the haves and have-nots. that is not america. we need to provide sensible reasons pathways and legislation is coming andana democrats can either be at the head of the line where the way back index only in politics. nicole: i live one hour away from the mexican border. i also lived in tucson arizona.
we have to regularly pass through border patrol stops. whether or not you have a medical cannabis card or not they will seize your medicine. how many times have you gone through a federal agency and have them take away your blood pressure medication? how many times? how many of you have had vicodin sees? seized? >> opponents? it will go to a vote. this is on the secondary amendment. favor of number 60 please raise your cards. all opposed.
just a second. take your seats. just one quick announcement. suggestion that someone does not have a clicker. wait a second. . want to go on record if you don't have a clicker now is your chance to get one. if you lose your clicker. if you can't find it, please advise us. you must use your own clicker. don't use someone else's clicker.
indication, this is not a joke. clicker,ake a vote by that means we can track the vote. if you are not voting with your clicker, it's a problem. i didn't know i would have to make that announcement. we are settled on that. pryor: we were very pleased thatthe unity amendment the sanders campaign manager the clinton campaign agreed to and adopted. it was our he that we would maintain that unity. i think that maybe when we go back and look at the clicker issue, maybe there were a few people that didn't vote.
we will let that slide. we would want this vote not to change. we will withdraw our objections. [applause] franklin: next amendment please. >> amendment number nine. amasaki.d by karen n on page 12, line 21. the proposed amendment is to add after the words character and history the following. system is immigration full of backlogs and bureaucracy that result in u.s. citizens waiting for decades to be reunited with family members and green cardholders waiting for
years to be reunited with their addses and minor children after we bust and before defend against, fix these family backlogs and. karen: i am sponsoring this amendment. sponsoring this amendment, to appreciate the drafters in their strong immigration reform language. wanted to make sure we were clear about the need to address the backlog. there are over 4 million family in line foring visas that are not sufficient for the family categories.
spouses and minor children of green card holders wait almost two years and from mexico, three years. this is spouses and minor children, people legally here. the wait time for unmarried adult children of a green card holder from mexico is over 20 years. for brothers and sisters from the philippines, almost 25 years. helpsing families immigrants to integrate and become more economically stable, since they don't need to send money back to family members. they're are able to be more productive without worrying about family members left behind. >> do we have 15 seconds? we do? do we have anyone prepared to speak in opposition? hearing none, we will go to a show of hands. all in favor indicate by raising your hand. all opposed?
it passes. thank you. next amendment, please. >> amendment number 50, sponsored by benjamin jealous on page 11, line 35, the proposed 35ndment is to strike line beginning with "we will invest in training for officers" and replace with the following beginning at line 35 to line 40, ending with the following, "including through reforming the grand jury process." "we willion will read, work with police chiefs to invest in training for officers on issues such as de-escalation and the creation of national guidelines for the appropriate use of force, including how to deescalate situations. we will encourage better police-community relations,
require the use of body cameras, and stop the use of weapons of war that have no place in our communities. we will end racial profiling that targets individual solely ethnic city,gion, and national origin, which is un-american and counterproductive. dataould report national on policing strategies and andide greater transparency accountability. we will require the department of justice to investigate all questionable or suspicious police involved shootings, and we will support states and localities who help make those investigations and prosecutions --including through reforming the grand jury process." >> thank you. the sponsor has one minute. >> thank you, madam chair. we started yesterday with a great unity on the $15 minimum
wage. pryor just now graciously reference the need for us to continue in that spirit of unity. it's my pleasure to stand beside my fellow soldier in the civil rights movement, dan crump. here with the two campaigns are in all agreement on this language. [applause] from minnesota to louisiana to d allas, to baltimore, where i'm from, oakland and many other places, there is a need for us trustuild the truck -- between our communities and the police and this will do that. thank you.
we will urge that everybody support this. >> 15 seconds. after the second. thank you. we have the second. now you have five minutes. [applause] democrat andud president of a national bar association 66,000 black lawyers, judges, and legal professionals all across america. for benand proudly jealous, who is the president of the national association for the advancement of colored people. last time we were together here in orlando, fighting for justice for trayvon martin about 40 miles from here.
and congresswoman maxine waters -- the spirit of this bill goes directly to what happened in ferguson,own, and missouri when they came in with these weapons of war in our communities. it is so very important that we are unified 100% as democrats on this, because we need the statistics to make the case. baltimore,esota, maryland, los angeles, california, and everywhere they continue to kill unarmed people of color without any accountability.
[chanting "black lives matter"] is, what dr.sion king said -- when i talk to all the young people in black lives matter, congresswoman waters, the system break our hearts over and over and over again. nobody is being held accountable when they kill our children. dr. king said what we remember most is not the criticism of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. let them know that the democratic party stood up for them unanimously for criminal justice reform. thank you.
>> vote together and get this done. god bless. you have 2 minutes. >> my name is justin and i'm from minnesota. i'm going to speak this way because i need my people at home to see that we hear and we are best to honor the struggle. my comrades are in the streets right now. we are here. we are not safe. a man's life,ided and a man was murdered in front of his four-year-old daughter. you can hear screaming in the background, trying to comfort her mother. this amendment is the beginning of what we need to start as a revision and of a brand-new justice system.
revisioning of a brand-new justice system. we don't have a justice system today. we have a crime and punishment system, one that protects the profit and property of the wealthy and divides and controls the rest of us. it will divide you from your family. we will struggle and resist every moment that we can, and still we build -- until we build a system that works for our people. as a down payment on the work we've got to do to get it right. >> thank you. 40 seconds. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is kelly. i'm a social justice and civil rights activist from cincinnati, ohio. in 2001, leading up to 2001, 14 african-american men were murdered at the hands of cincinnati police officers.
i was on the frontlines fighting .or justice for those citizens i do respect our police officers. i understand we need them in our communities. however, police officers are taught to serve and protect our communities, not kill our communities. i was recently in cleveland fighting for justice for tamir rice. ohio, a in cincinnati, man was murdered. they have to be held accountable. [applause] >> excuse me, one minute. one minute, please. we just want to make very clear that most of the people in this room have been in prayer most of the last week. family,for the sterling the castilo family, the 5
officers and her families killed in dallas -- their families killed in dallas. [applause] i am a criminologist i training because my grandfather was in law enforcement for 30 years during he was the inspiration in my life. this issue is not either/or, it's both/and. nobody should be discriminated against because of the color of the skin or the color of their uniform. this though is needed because we are the party of martin luther king and we've got to finish the work that he started. forward on this even as we move forward on the rest of the equation. thank you. [applause] >> we are ready for a vote. ready for a vote.
all in favor indicate by a show of hands. all opposed. the ayes have it. passes unanimously. the next amendment, amendment number 139, sponsored by benjamin kemper. page 11, line 41. the proposed amendment is on page 11, line 41, strike the following. "explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system and insert the following, "reform the civil asset forfeiture system to protect people and remove perverse incentives for policing for profit." >> the wrong thing is on the screen right now.
amendment.a unity she just read it, but it's not on the screen. >> you have the right amendment? >> can you read that again, please? >> you can read it. my name is ben temper from los angeles, california. -- ben kemper. i am from los angeles, california. this is a unity agreement. i'm very proud to be able to announce that. strike "1, line 41, explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system" and insert "reform the civil asset forfeiture system to protect people and to remove perverse incentives for policing for profit." >> thank you. are there seconds?
15 seconds, we have them. anyone speaking against this? should not be. all in favor. indicate by the sound of aye. passage is unanimous. it passed. >> that's not what passed. >> not the screen. come back. a i will read this again in second. idea thate have no you can be driving down the highway and let's say you've got no front license plate. not particularly a criminal act but something they can pull you over for. >> out of order. we just need you to read the amendment.
it passed. >> ok. it's a unity amendment, ma'am. >> i know it is. that's why a want you to read it -- i want you to read it. [inaudible] yes, if we want to be here until wednesday. [inaudible] i agree that we should. >> may i have a point of personal privilege? >> read the amendment, because there's a question about it. >> i did read it. i will read it again. page 11, line 41, strike "explore reforms of the civil asset forfeiture system" and civil assetrm the forfeiture system to protect people and remove perverse incentives for policing for profit." >> that is what passed.
>> that is what passed, ma'am. >> can we celebrate that? >> thank you very much. next amendment. >> amendment 168 has been withdrawn. amendment number 175 has been withdrawn. amendment number 131 has been withdrawn. number 52 has been withdrawn. amendment number 132 has been withdrawn. amendment number 31 -- it's a
little further back in the packet. that amendment has been withdrawn. is that the end? >> yes. here.are going to take a 15 got it. buenas tardes >> good afternoo -- good afternoon. not buenas noches yet. as democrats, we believe america's role as a leader for peace and prosperity in the world is essential to the success of our economy and our long-term security. we areader, we know
stronger when we work closely with our partners and allies. we reject the language of the republican nominee, who seeks to separate and divide us based on religion, ethnicity, and national origin. with these words, we introduce the section on principal leadership, mr. chairman. , and i is section 10 believe there are no amendments. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> there you go. [applause] section 10 having been presented, and with no amendments, we will move to 11, supporting our troops. could we have an introduction, please >> than? >> thank you, mr. chair. democrats believe the united states must have the strongest
military in the world, and we support a defense budget that meets those obligations. we also believe we can serve our servicemen does best when we out fraud in defense contracting. democrats, when we say we support our troops, we thank them throughout their lives for their selfless service, and we support our military families. we will remain steadfast in support of programs and initiatives that address the health and long-term well-being of our nation's veterans and their families. that is a sacred bond. are there any amendments? >> yes, mr. chair. amendment 191, sponsored by bennie thompson, on page 27, line five. the proposed amendment is to replace the following, "as we look beyond the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and the conclusion of long-term nationbuilding with large military footprint, we will continue to get rid of
outdated, cold war-era systems and ensure our security with a more agile and more flexible force. that will be replaced with the following. "we will seek a more agile and flexible force, advancing our objectives in iraq and afghanistan without large u.s. military footprint. improving civilian capacity for conflict resolution and stabilization, and ridding the military of out dated cold war-era systems." >> the proposer has one minute. ok, it's coming. >> sorry, mr. chair. getne moment as we try to
to agreement with the other campaign. give me one minute. >> will give you a minute. there may be an agreement on this. mr. chair? >> yes. >> it is my understanding there has been an agreement reached with the sanders campaign. >> that means 191 is being withdrawn and will be on the manager's mark, which we will take up later. >> thank you, mr. chair. amendments? >> amendment number 27, sponsored by rand hawke. the proposed amendment is to add after the words "wounds of war, " the following.
for all veterans serving on ind, sea, in the air or combat zones. >> the proposer has one minute. >> i will withdraw this. >> the proposer has withdrawn. that is the entirety of amendments to come before us in current forms, both having been withdrawn? >> that's correct. >> both having been withdrawn, that's another section we have completed. we will go to global threats. mayor lee? lee: in order to protect our country, democrats are fully committed to marshaling a wide range of resources, including coalitions, partnerships, diplomacy, and development in combating climate change. and we will strengthen our homeland security, deal wisely and firmly with those who seek to imperil america or our
partners, deter aggression, and promote peace. >> thank you, mayor. are there amendments to this section? >> there are, mr. chair. >> would you read the first? have they been passed out? the package you are looking for to take up this section has "83" on the front. got it now? they have a few that have artie come down. he's right there. they are being passed out. we will wait a minute.
i think the final ones are being delivered. it is 83. we will put it up. courtney, could you read 83 please? chair.y: yes, mr. courtney: yes, mr. chair. . amendment number 97, sponsored by maia barry on page 29, line six, the proposed amendment is to strike the following, "will not hesitate to take military action if iran violates the agreement," and insert the following, "will work with the international community to resolve any potential disputes regarding implementing the nuclear agreement." >> the maker has one minute to explain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. barry. is maia we will continue the work of this administration to ensure iran never acquires a nuclear weapon.
>> speak a little slower, there are some people -- >> we will work with the administration to ensure iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, and will work with the international community to resolve any disputes. the amendment is simply to adjust the language to more accurately reflect the democratic party's position. >> the amendment has been offered. do we have 15 seconds? we have 15 seconds. are their who will speak in opposition? i understand there are individuals who will speak in opposition. therefore, we will begin the five-minute clock on the proposal side. >> the platform currently professes support for the nuclear agreement reached with iran. in the spirit of the agreement and out of recognition for the need to give the agreement full chance to be implement it, we strike language saying the u.s. will not hesitate to use military force. this language is unconstructive and is the kind of saber
rattling that is not necessary to be in the democratic platform. we have heard repeatedly, this is an aspirational document, where the goal should be peace and not war. [applause] the language seems to undercut and contradict the commitment made elsewhere in the platform for war to be used as a last resort, taken side-by-side with the very aggressive language towards iran in the section overall, this is a cause for concern. i would also add, just as george w. bush perhaps during the iraq war did not hesitate to use war, saw the lives lost of half a million iraqis between 2003 and 2011, hundreds of americans lives lost, including 22 veterans a day, each by suicide, we have the obligation to superstate there are alternatives. it doesn't take violence off the
table, but it leads to suggest there are ways to allow diplomacy to work. >> thank you. [applause] >> there are additional proponents. >> i would like to add. >> additional proponents? >> yes. i would like to speak in support of the amendment. >> please. >> i believe it's important for the democratic party to distinguish itself as a party of diplomacy and peace, and not one of war. as senator bernie sanders has pointed out, "we need a foreign policy based on building coalitions, not perpetual warfare in the middle east." it is important for us as a party to take every opportunity to distinguish ourselves from the republicans, especially the current nominee, whose reckless warmongering promises a future of insecurity for we americans and the people of the world. the current language in the platform that this amendment wants to strike is simply too aggressive and sends the wrong message. we should use every opportunity in the platform to be clear
about our commitment to diplomacy and peace. thank you. [applause] from theine cramer, state of nevada. as a democrat, i believe our platform should want to send my children to college, and not to war. as long as we have the selective service that requires my son to register for the draft in order to receive his student loans, the democratic party platform should not saber rattle and should not want to send my boys to war. mr. chairman, tutorial from connecticut. i am a veteran. i'm a retired military physician. i have worked in the department of veterans affairs. we cannot -- >> thank you for your service. >> thank you, sir. we cannot constantly take war as the first resort for any international conflict that we
have. we have to give peace a chance. i will tell you, active duty military and veterans are sick of being sent to war and then, five years later, when people have lost life and limb. can't hear me? i'm bellowing. losepeople, when people life and limb and, five years later, we go, well, maybe we should not have done that. it's time to stop this. it's time to think before we go to war, rather than after we go to war. [applause] >> one minute. from nebraska. it is simple, folks. we will never make friends by dropping bombs on them. thank you. [applause] >> 30 seconds. >> can i reserve until they are
done? >> you can't. if you want to use it, i can give you 30 seconds. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just lastly point out, the existing platform language seems to undercut the iran agreement itself, one that our president and then-secretary of state clinton worked hard on. section 36 lays out a dispute resolution mechanism, a series of diplomatic steps to be taken amid concerns over the agreement. if the steps are insufficient, the agreement says we should go to the un security council. i ask we stand with the administration and our secretary of state. >> those in opposition have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. i am a delegate from florida, representing, proudly representing hillary clinton. i rise to speak in opposition to this amendment. reach about to launch,
the one-year anniversary of the historic relation, the historic agreement with iran that stopped dead iran's nuclear path. it stopped its ability to race towards a nuclear weapon, it kept israel safe, and brought us back from a nuclear war. this amendment does not reflect the balance of that agreement, which was painstakingly negotiating -- negotiated, including by some members of our team in this room. we have to accept their judgment, and this amendment undermines that. we are not for war. we are for keeping iran from getting a nuclear weapon. we have worked through the manager's mark and come up with language that reflects a concern expressed by some of the proponents of this agreement. and it says, if military actions, military actions would
only occur if the iranians were to race towards achieving a nuclear weapon. we have amended the text to be more precise about when and if military action would be called for. . of course, it must be a last resort, and our goal must be to figuratively enforce the nuclear deal to ensure that iran never obtains a nuclear weapon, and that's what the iran nuclear deal dead. ensuring, we will ensure there are penalties for even small violations if iran ever attempts to break out of that historic agreement. but rest assured, if iran begins a race to a nuclear weapon, we cannot let that happen, and it's critical that we maintain all options, and that iran hears that we will maintain all options to prevent it from ever getting a nuclear weapon. we also have to make sure that the currently airship of iran --
current leadership of iran clearly understands, we will take whatever steps are necessary to deter it. our friends in the region, our our securityand depends on that being heard loud and clear. this amendment undercuts that message, and i urge that you should vote against this amendment and leave iran with a very clear impression that they have no doubt, it will never be able to acquire a nuclear weapon. i urge you to vote against this amendment. thank you. is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on the issue? with no further discussion of the issue, we will raise cards and, let's raise cards. all in favor of the amendment, raise your card. those against? against has it.
do we have another amendment? read the amendment. >> amendment number 149, sponsored by mark stanley, on page 29, line 42. the proposed amendment is fair the section to read -- for the section to read as follows. "we will also ensure a coherent strategy across federal agencies by building on the obama administration's cyber security national action plan, especially the empowerment of a federal chief information security officer, the modernization of federal information technology, and upgrades to government wide cyber security." >> the proponent has one minute. >> i and mark stanley, from dallas. >> let me just ask you, i know we have people here, but we actually have people watching, so if you look this way, they will see you. >> ok. >> i want to thank the dnc for this very warm reception,
in orlando and in this room. i do think that this amendment is a no-brainer. in recent years, several entities have been victimized by high-profile cyber attacks, from to then to target -- anthem target to jpmorgan to the office of personnel management, where they are getting our records, are health and financial records. often out of country culprits are doing this, trying to steal corporate secrets and tried to gain geopolitical advantage. there is no way to prevent every data breach, but we must do all we can to prevent intermediate breaches by improving our defenses. earlier this year, our president issued a national cyber security action plan to improve coordination on cyber security, within the government and the private sector. it included a plan to hire the first-ever chief enforcement, chief information security officer, and increased the budget by 35%.
i think this is important to upgrade our cyber security defenses. i think it's a no-brainer, and i hope you will vote for it. >> i gave you a little extra time. i don't think is anyone who will speak against this. am i correct? we have 15. i will call for immediate vote. raise your white card if you are in favor. anyone wishing to be recorded as in the negative? one, two in the negative. thank you. do we have another amendment? >> thank you, mr. chair. amendment 155, sponsored by timothy wright, page 29, line 43. the proposed amendment is to rename the section "cyber security and online privacy," and add this language "democrats reject the false choice between privacy interests and keeping americans safe. we need liberty and security, and each makes the other possible. we will protect the privacy and
civil liberties of the american people, standing firm against the type of warrantless surveillance of american citizens that flourished during the bush administration, and supporting recent reforms to government balked data collection programs, so the government is not sitting on millions of files that it collects in bulk." >> the proponent has one minute to introduce. a mr. chairman, as a lawyer, constitutional lawyer, i ask that we support and pass this amendment protecting our privacy and civil liberties. >> thank you. that's the introduction. to we have any 15 seconders? do we have anyone going to speak in opposition? anyone speaking in opposition? with your permission, i will go directly to a vote. >> but i wrote a great speech. [laughter] >> i'm sure you did.
you get an a. all in favor, please raise your right card. those who wish to be recorded differently? i think it passes with one objection. thank you. do we have an additional amendment? >> we do, mr. chair. >> point of privilege. inaudible] >> ok. when you use the microphone, please speak up. courtney? >> amendment number 166, sponsored by nancy sadr oderbergh. "we support a national commission on digital security and encryption to bring together technology and public safety communities, to address the
needs of law enforcement, protect the privacy and security of all americans that use technology, assess how innovation might point to new policy approaches, and advance our larger national security and global competitiveness interests." >> the proponent has one minute to introduce. quite simply,ent, puts forward a national commission on digital security and encryption, which will help us better develop a balance between the need to protect individuals' personal information as well as providing law enforcement the necessary information they need. >> either 15 seconds? there are 15 seconds. is anyone intending to speak in opposition? with your permission, we will go directly to a vote. >> you are going to speak in opposition? ok. you may spend up to five minutes
speaking in favor or any portion thereof. >> thank you, mr. chair. to explain why we are asking for your vote, let us take a brief moment and explain the balance this amendment achieves. encryption technologies are critical tools for protecting privacy and the individuals' personal information. at the same time, law enforcement and intelligence professionals need access to information to keep our country safe. as well as a parent the apple versus the fbi case, encryption, in that case of a device addressed, and in the context of data in motion, can be an impediment to law enforcement obtaining the information it needs. and we recognize this is a difficult balance, in the middle of a conversation we're having among ourselves, including in this room. and we believe, as this
amendment suggests, the best way forward is through a commission on digital security that brings together law enforcement, security personnel, experts in technology from silicon valley, to weigh the best way forward. this commission would propose solutions that both protect very important individual private also givingwhile law enforcement and intelligence agencies the critical tools they need to protect our communities. lastly, the solution should not undermine the very purpose of and corruption itself, such as exposing our networks to hacking. this is a very important debate in our community, and it deserves a commission to give all sides the appropriate balance, and i are john members to support it.
thank you. >> anyone else -- and i urge our members to support it. >> thank you. anyone else wishing to express their support? >> the problem for me with this, it sounds very similar to a lot of language that was used to justify the nsa. [applause] and until there is clearer, more precise language, i cannot in good conscience support this, and i don't think anyone on should. after what we have learned about the nsa. let's not go there again. after what we learned about the we, through mr. snowden, should not be going there again without absolute guarantees. >> could you please identify yourself? i am from alaska. >> from wisconsin. i am not an expert in this issue needsbut this commission a lot further explanation.
it looks like the gang up on apple commission, on the encryption issue, where i know there's a lot of sophisticated analysis on both sides, so i want to say, i'm very dubious. thank you. >> anyone else want to be heard in opposition? one other person. >> yes, thank you. stephen woodruff, from the northern mariana islands. i would just say, i agree with the other persons who are opposing this, that the language andoo vague and ambiguous, the only way i would support a commission like this is if we also have language calling for amnesty for mr. snowden. [applause] >> all right. anyone else? all those in favor of the amendment, please raise your white card. ayes haveppear the
withdrawn. mr. chair, there are no more amendments in this section. >> thank you. i'm going to ask my cochair to valuesce protect our with a statement. advocating for educational opportunities for women and girls and an end to human trafficking, to nurturing of young leaders and protecting refugees, democrats know we must protect our values to ensure a more secure, stable, and peaceful world. of values of inclusion and tolerance, and our belief that all people are created equal, inspire us to call for protections for religious minorities, universal rights, and the decriminalization of hiv and aids loss. >
-- laws. >> amendment number 165, on page 31, line seven. the proposed amendment is to add the following. "democrats believe that lgbt oures our human -- rights human rights, and american foreign-policy should advance the ability of all persons to live with dignity, security, and respect regardless of who they are over they love. we applaud president obama's foundational memorandum to advance the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons globally, which combats criminalization, protects refugees, provides for an assistant, responds quickly to abuses, and engages international organizations on these rights. we will continue to stand with lgbt people around the world, including combating efforts by any nation to infringe on lgbt rights or ignore abuse."
>> the proponent has one minute to introduce. >> thank you, mr. chairman. lgbt rights are human rights, so secretary clinton declared in 2011 before the united nations human rights council, telling world leaders that gay rights are human rights, and henceforth this would be the foreign policy of the united states of america. [applause] means our foreign-policy should promote human rights of lgbt people around the world. it means that we should work to advance the ability of all people to live with dignity, security, and respect, regardless of who they are, who they love, or where they live.
thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. are there 15 seconds? there are 15 seconds. is there anybody who wishes to be heard in opposition? --the absence of opposition go ahead. >> i would like to offer a friendly amendment to this. btq is actually how we identify ourselves. this whole document is lacking the q for queer. we will take that up as a technical issue, to the technical review process. i assume it will be acted on, but there is not an amendment process that will allow it. i don't think anyone's going to use one of the remaining amendments, but i will refer it
for technical review. withut understanding respect to technical review, all those in favor raise your cards. anyone wishing to be recorded in the negative? it passes nearly unanimously. thank you. [applause] are there any additional? >> there are no more amendments in this section. >> that means we have completed that one. we're back to the secretary of state of rhode island, to introduce "a leader in the world." >> thank you, mr. chairman. believes firmly american leadership is essential to keeping us safe and our economy growing in the years ahead. nomineey's presidential will guide us in deepening
alliances with asia-pacific countries, securing common democratic values in the middle east, strengthening partnerships with african nations, and protecting the global economy. >> great. thank you. do we have amendments to this section? >> we do, mr. chair. >> where you read the first? >> amendment 98, sponsored by maia barry. afteroposed amendment is thewords "provide palestinians with," add the following, an end to occupation --"illegal settlement [applause] he proponent has one minute
-- of the proponent has one minute to introduce. >> thank you, mr. chairman. colleagues, we have been very patient with each other. i think this one doesn't have to be a difficult one. the occupation of palestinian territories must and for israel hes and palate -- israelis and palestinians to live amo. the united states must be a credible peace broker. this language simply adds the following to the sentence -- we will continue to work towards a two state solution to israeli and palestinian conflict, to recognize borders that provide the palestinians with an end to occupation and illegal settlements so they may live in independent sovereignty and dignity. >> do we have 15 seconders? hold them up. know peoplegive, i will speak in opposition.
i will open the five-minute clock. at this point, because this may be a contentious issue, does everyone have their clicker? all right. are there any clickers, are there any seats where people you know have left permanently, where there is a clicker? because if there is, i will ask that that be picked up. do we have a clerk? all right. will you grab that? are there any others -- just check. if there are seats where there is a clicker, where you know the person has left, raise your hand. ok. final provision i want to make. there are individuals who have votes, but they are fractional votes. if it is a particularly close vote, we will have to determine with respect to those individuals, and they represent territories, what percentage their vote counts. you understand what i'm saying?
i think you do. i will say it again. i will say it again, and i will try to do a better job. there are territorial representatives who have fractional votes, so when the vote comes up, if it happens to be close, and i don't know whether it will, but if it happens to be close, before i will declare a winner or a loser on that question, we will have to determine if, how those fractional voters cast their votes, which we will do electronically. it will just take us a few moments to review. that would probably come into question if it is a one or two -vote issue. i want to say that upfront, so there's no misunderstanding at the end of any voting process. does everyone understand now? thank you very much. you have your five minutes begin. >> i'm going to respectfully acknowledge again, this does not have to be a controversial, contentious amendment.
we are simply stating a matter of fact. there is an occupation. more than 4 million people live under occupation. i would suggest to you the following. a two stateians, solution would mean an independent and viable and sovereign state of their own, freedom to travel, do business, and governed themselves, and palestinians would have the right to chart their own destiny at last. the indignity of occupation would and, and a new -- end, and a new era of justice would begin. that is a statement made by our third female secretary of state and first female nominee for president, hillary rodham clinton. that was in 2010. in case you think the secretary changed her mind, i offer the following. in the west bank, i got my first glance of life under occupation by palestinians, denied the self-determination americans take for granted. secretary clinton, in 2014.
this is not something that warns us picking each other apart on. this is a simple addition to the language in st. louis,, which i find many foss with but that's not the point -- many flaws with, but that's not the point. this is making a factual correction so we can ignore knowledge the occupation and -- we can acknowledge the occupation. thank you. cornell west, new jersey. i love you, too. i come from people who have been terrorized and stigmatized for 400 years, and i was raised in a baptist church which taught me to tell the truth. the condition of truth is to always allow suffering to speak. we ought to have a love for our precious jewish brothers and sisters, and a love for our precious palestinian brothers and sisters.
that's not a contradiction. that's not a contradiction. both groups have been terrorized and traumatized and stigmatized, but when you talk about occupation, if there was a palestinian occupation of jewish brothers and sisters, we would be morally outraged. if there is an israeli occupation of palestinian brothers and sisters, we ought to be morally outraged. this is an issue of our time. it has spiritual and moral implications. not just about politics or the next election. and for the younger generation, is more and more becoming what vietnam was for the 1960's and thei south africa was for 1980's. we must never tolerate one iota of anti-jewish hatred, and never one iota of anti- palestinian or anti-arab or anti-muslim hatred. can we walk that line?
democratic party, you have been in denial for too long. palestinians ought to be free. >> two minutes remaining. you better use it. two minutes. >> i want to add one additional voice before i turn it over to another colleague. the mayor of tel aviv recently made this statement. israelis understand what is happening in their day-to-day lives. "we are the only ones in the world with another people living among us under our occupation, denying the many civil rights. this is not a controversial position. it is a statement of fact, acknowledged by people, including israelis who themselves acknowledge there is an occupation. >> one minute. >> i am from oregon, and i would just like to add the remark. i tried to write an amendment
about this. this is how it strikes me. palestinians have a right, just like israelis, to independence, self-determination, sovereignty, peace, and dignity in their own land, with recognized borders in their own viable state. palestinians everywhere have an immediate human right to food, water, adequate sanitation, and ready access to medical care. they further have a human right viasas, -- right to permanent school, and the right tradeage in marketing and and not live under conditions of confinement or siege. israelis and palestinians alike deserve security, recognition, and a normal life free from terror and incitement. >> thank you, thank you. that concludes that side.
those opposed to the amendment have five minutes. please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with the hillary campaign, from florida. as he distinguished dr. west said, we must find a way to lock the line and help the israelis and the palestinians achieve dignity, justice, democracy, and independence, and this draft does exactly that. this was painstakingly negotiated, over many months, without drafting committee. i asked my colleagues to read what is in there, in the current draft. palestinian should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state in peace and indignity. this is the most progressive platform, the most balanced platform in the history of the democratic party, and we should be proud of this.
we have painstakingly done this. the only way we will secure peace, dignity, and justice for the palestinian people, along with security for israel, is through negotiations, and those negotiations have to be led by the united states. this proposed amendment undermines the ability -- >> we can't talk about tolerance if we will interrupt the speaker. please. >> this amendment would undermine the ability of the next president of the united states, hillary clinton, to lead the effort to negotiate an end to this conflict and independent states for both, so i asked my colleagues to vote no. >> additional speakers? please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. steve benjamin. we should be proud of this draft platform. we step into new territory, the
very first time that we have put our party on record in support of two states, a palestinian state, one with independence, sovereignty, and dignity, and a free and democratic jewish state of israel. there are many difficult issues. i have been to the middle east. israel.een to there are many difficult issues to be negotiated. borders, security, jerusalem, refugees. they are difficult issues, and they all affect each other. ultimately, it's up to the palestinian and israeli leadership to make the tough choices that must be made. we cannot and we should not over the others. we cannot prescribe this -- specific outcomes. to realize peace and support a fair two state solution, we must
defeat this amendment and support the base text of the platform. we should be proud that our platform, the democratic party platform, for the very first time supports the only path to two states, bilateral negotiations between israel and palestine. thank you. >> any further comments? i want to thank the speakers for their presentations, and the respect they have shown for each other. with that, we will go immediately to electronic vote, and we will leave it up for 60 seconds, and we will record the vote. can we get it up, please? don't vote until such time as i ask you to. you may vote.
ok. >> amendment number 100, sponsored by maya barry. >> can we get it up? please read the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> you might have to do it loud. >> amendment number 100 on page 34, line two. aftered amendment states, the words "peace and dignity," add the following -- "we call for an international effort to rebuild gaza, which the u.n. warns could be uninhabitable by 2020, and where poverty and hopelessness undermine peace and security for both palestinians and israelis." >> i will ask you to read it a second time. >> amendment number 100, on page 34, line two.
the proposed amendment states after the words "peace and dignity," add the following -- "we also call for an international effort to rebuild gaza, which the u.n. warns could be uninhabitable by 2020, and where poverty and hopelessness undermine peace and security for both palestinians and israelis." >> the speaker has one minute to introduce. mr. chairman. as the clerk read -- >> please identify yourself. barry, originally from michigan and now from maryland. we call to rebuild gaza, which the united nations warns could be uninhabitable by 2020, and where poverty and hopelessness undermine peace and security for palestinians and israelis. >> are the 15 seconders?
there are. will anyone be speaking in opposition? there will be an opposition. five minutes are granted to the proponents of the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by noting, we made the point about final status items need to not be in our platform. our platform is full of final status items with regards to palestine and israel, and that is problematic. this is simply language addressing the humanitarian crisis in gaza. it is incumbent on a party to support the international effort to rebuild gaza. efforts have been insufficient and slow, and we owe it to israelis and palestinians alike to make this a priority. we will undermine the security of palestinians and israelis if we cannot provide a vehicle for palestinians to live a dignified, free life. 60% has 43% unemployment,
youth unemployment. gaza faces a humanitarian crisis. according to the u.n., 95% of gaza's water is not safe to drink. oxfam estimates it will take more than 100 years to rebuild after the recent conflict. of the 1.8 million people living in gaza, 100,000 still are homeless, as a result of the 19,000 homes that were destroyed. this is a city, sorry, this is a territory twice the size of d.c. this is a humanitarian plea to do the right thing. it does not impact the other language, does not impact the conversations in st. louis. it merely suggests that we have a heart and compassion, and we are capable of applying it to both palestinians and israelis. [applause] >> one of the great figures of the 20 century, abraham joshua
eschel, said that indifference to evil is more evil than evil itself. talking about any slice of humanity. when you are talking about gaza, you are talking about a level of such incredible misery and unbelievable suffering. during the attacks just a few years ago, 2000 were killed. 500 babies were killed. and not a word for many of our political elites. what is going on in this country? what's going on among our elites? are we so paralyzed, so debilitated by the money flowing or the indifference in our hearts? i would hope not. that's what the legacy of martin luther king junior and so many others are all about. if this party has an even orientation, we will always say,
you have to be equally concerned about our jewish brothers and sisters who have to deal with the crimes coming out of hamas, yes, hamas has to take responsibility, killing innocent people is a crime against humanity, but so is the is really defense forces when they kill innocent folk on the other side. if we are not able to deal with that, we are in the same position this party was in 80 years ago when he didn't want to deal with jim crow, didn't want to deal with lynching, in a state of denial, saying, somehow these negro >> thank you doctor. half minutesnd a remaining. [applause] nancy jacobson, florida.
it is a humanitarian crisis and this is when it is at its best when we help others in addition to the misery that we would seek to help, they are actually in despair. despair breeds violence. that we support this and use our best efforts to do that. [applause] >> 30 seconds. nebraska and i don't represent a candidate. believe thatcrats the people of gaza need salvation and we can help them. let's help them.
thank you. >> that concludes the five minutes. we will hear from those not in support of the amendment. good evening. i am speaking on behalf of the hillary delegation. situation ofthe gaza is a terrible tragedy and that gaza needs financial assistance to rebuild its economy. the hopelessness is not a result of the lack of support to rebuild gaza. in fact, israel and the international community already provide and allow that. for the flow of humanitarian aid including food and medicine and building materials. instead, the real key to ending suffering is a two state solution.
one that provides palestinians with sovereignty and dignity and secures israel's future. as the platform also suggests, this can only be achieved with direct negotiations between their two leaders. this is the only approach that will bring support. it is all something we must strongly support. the amendment while drawing attention nonetheless distracts from this focus. we have an additional speaker. before discussion has been had. these are the individuals who are arguing against the amendment. >> mark stanley from dallas, texas. i'm a hillary clinton delegate.
i want to put a practical spin on this. there is no one who doesn't feel the compassion for people who are suffering. this platform has already been litigated. it has been litigated in the drafting committee and they came up with a compromise statement on israel. and sayke one issue let's open that up. then we have to open up everything else. interestn up gaza for we are not talking about the other side of it. we're not talking about tunnels that are going into israel. we are not talking about gaza who is trying to take out the water utilities. why are we going to relitigate this now? it has been done. please vote against this amendment. >> anyone voting against this
amendment? >> amendment 162 has been with john. , the proposed amendment is to insert after the following:ies the democrats applaud president obama's national strategy for combating wildlife trafficking, and his commitment to preserving the earth's natural beauty for future generations. democrats support science-based management of iconic wildlife in a africa,. and are related to or funded by special interests. >> i'm going to ask you to do that one more time. amendment number 114
sponsored by carrie tucker. amendment is to insert the following after the word economies. democrats applaud president obama's national strategy for combating wildlife trafficking, and his commitment to preserving the earth's natural beauty for future generations. science-basedort management of iconic wildlife in -- and are related to or funded by non-scientific shall interest. >> the proponent has one minute to speak. i doubt very many people know much about this subject. i have worked in africa and i have a report by our democratic
house and national resources commission that deals with this. let me read the summary. they have equally strong frameworks. theytunately implementation of these frameworks has been marred by corruption and has not produced the adverse highs. the recent decision by fish and is a promisinge development. notver, the agency is making sure that drugmakers are bad decision worse. i wanted to tell you a couple of things. that is your one minute. to our 15 second is, is anyone
desiring to be heard of opposition. with your position, i am going to call the vote. please raisefavor your right card. anyone that is wishing to be on record. you have won the argument. down aly that takes it notch. amendment number 192 has been withdrawn. the proposed amendment is to insert a section called global climate leadership which reads that democrats believe it would be a grave mistake for the united states to lead another nation. andact, we must meet first launching a green industrial revolution because that is the key to getting artist to follow.
ownbecause it is in our interest to do so. so much our generation should leave the world war ii mobilization to save civilization from catastrophic consequences. we must think beyond terrorist. been --ident will come convene a summit on the best andneers and climate indigenous communities to chart a course towards the healthy future we all want for our families and communities. [applause] thank you.
if the words repeat themselves, they will be corrected. it was our fault. the proponent has one minute. >> russell green speaking. , i would like to begin to make my case. farther seconds? the plot begins to run. plasticsection of our -- platform is about responsibilities. great mistake for america to abandon our responsibilities. we have no greater responsibility than to respond and lead the world in addressing the greatest threat that humanity has ever known. tobal warming threatens destabilize the climate for tens of thousands of years sending the earth into a hot state, inhospitable to humanity. it business as usual continues,
a chain reaction will cause the unraveling of this community. economyore, the global -- it threatens to wipe out much of life on earth. , it would to unfold take some 10 million years for life to fully recover. this is the truth. responsibility, something that demands a response. a response to the best of your ability. america must rise to this moment. we must declare that we will. i ask that we amend our platform and we must call this out explicitly. it is not enough that this is the most progressive -- democratic platform.
it must match the moment. ist we will be remembered not only what will be included but what we left out. prioritizing a climate the mobilization presents the most immediate past to environmental justice. with the world war ii homefront. it --ld drastically in reduce inequality. my amendment also calls on our call a summit on the best climate experts to chart a path for it. i asked that you consider adding this to our platform. [applause] >> 2.5 minutes for any other speakers. my name is david braun and i am from california. observesike to just
that when this amendment came up , the person we had heard the sound of thunder. the thunder gods are talking people. the sea level rise is real. climate science is real. we are here to take action and lead and we need to do that. it is our commandment to be leaders of the future and to look out for the children of the future. we are here in the great state of florida. now is our moment. we have a responsibility. how will you look your grandchildren in the eye when people are having to migrate and when we are running out of food
and when wars are going everywhere? this is our opportunity. i ask you, i know people have been voting and blocks all day but i ask you to reach into your about lookinghink for the eyes of your children. the eyes of children will be suffering third world nations. this is the democratic party. we are the party of the new deal. we had no army and no navy to speak of but by 1945 we had the biggest army in the biggest navy in the world. we can do this. fuels will are going to tell us we can't do it. [applause] >> thank you.
is there anyone wishing to be heard in opposition? they're being no one, i am going to call a question. all those in favor raise your right card. here is one. this is everyone in favor, please raise your hand. everyone in opposition, please raise your hand. i would say the amendment passes. [applause] >> i have a dinner announcement. we are taking a dinner break. dinner is located on the hallway to the right is outside the doors. please grab the plate and plan to eat inside the room. the dinner break will be brief.
we will continue with our meeting business. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> the hard-fought primary season is over. watch c-span as the delegates consider the nomination of the first woman ever to head a major political party, and the first non-politician in several decades. watch live on c-span. listen been ready rapper get video on demand. you have a front row seat to every minute of both conventions on c-span all beginning on monday. >> on newsmakers this weekend,
he chairs the house ways and means committee. he talks about the republican tax proposal and trade policy. watch the interview at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. >> if we are going to invest into higher education in the commonwealth we have to change the way that we deliver education and expect more for the dollars that we are getting. robinsont, gerard talks about the state of education in the u.s.. >> is a body of literature pretty clear that there are certain courses you should take that should be in place if you expect to be successful in college. to simply accept student who haven't filled that curriculum obligation to let them into a school is doing a great disservice to them. it is sullying the efforts of further action would something i support.
>> president obama was in poland yesterday for the final day of the nato summit. speaking to the media to the media the closing news conference the president talked about u.s. relations overseas, gun violence in the u.s., and the uk's exit from the european union. is that obama -- president obama: it is my third visit to poland, each time we have been received with tremendous friendship and it signifies the close bonds between our two
countries. i want to begin this press conference with events back home. week.as been a tough first and foremost for the families who have been killed but also for the entire american family. in my call yesterday to the attorney general loretta lynch, i stressed that the justice department and our federal government should continue to do everything that we can to assist the investigation in dallas and police and the city of dallas as they deal with this tragedy. brown, il to chief commended him for showing outstanding leadership during an extremely challenging time. i asked him to convey to all the officers and the family tell the american people are grieving with them and that we stand with them. i have the opportunity to convey our condolences and in short
solidarity when i visit dallas and a few days. before i do let me just make some very brief points. this of all, as painful as week has been, i firmly believe that america is not as divided as some have suggested. andicans of all races backgrounds are rightly outraged by the inexcusable attacks on police weather in dallas or anyplace else. that includes protestors. it includes family members who have grave concerns about police conduct.
and they have said that this is unacceptable. there's no division there. and americans of all races and all backgrounds are also rightly saddened and angered about the deaths of alton sterling and philando castile and the larger persistent problem of african-americans and latinos being treated differently in our criminal justice system. so there is sorrow. there is anger. there is confusion about next steps. but there's unity in recognizing that this is not how we want our communities to operate. this is not who we want to be as americans. to moveves as the basis forward in a constructive and positive way.
so, we cannot let the actions of a few define all of us. the demented individual who carried out those attacks in dallas, he's no more represented of african-americans than the shooter in charleston was representative of white americans. or the shooter in orlando or san bernardino were representative of muslim americans. they don't speak for us. that's not who we are. and one of the things that gives me hope this week is actually seeing how the overwhelming majority of americans have reacted with empathy and understanding. we've seen police continue to reach out to communities that
they've served out to and showing incredible professionalism as they're protecting protestors. we've seen activists and grassroots groups who have expressed concern about police shootings but are also adamant in their support of the dallas police department. the dallas police department is a great example of a department that has taken the issue of police shooting seriously and has engaged in an approach that has not only brought down their murder rates, but also drastically reduced complaints around police misconduct. that's the spirit that we all need to embrace.
that's the spirit that i want to build on. that's one of the reasons why next week using the task force that we have set up after ferguson, but also building on it and inviting both police and law enforcement and community activists and civil rights leaders, bringing them together to the white house. i want to start moving on constructive action that are going to make a difference . because that is what all americans want. so when we start suggesting that somehow there's this enormous polarization and we're back to the situation in the 1960's, that's just not true.
you're not seeing riots and you're not seeing police going after people who are protesting peacefully. you've seen almost uniformly peaceful protests and you've seen uniformly police handling those protests with professionalism. and as tough and as disheartening as the loss of life was this week, we got a foundation to build on. we just have to have confidence that we can build on those better angels of our nature. and we have to make sure that all of us step back, do some reflection and make sure that
the rhetoric that we engage in is constructive and not destructive. that we're not painting anybody with an overly broad brush. we are not looking for the worst in people rather than the best. if we do that, we will make progress. now here in europe, this is a pivotal moment for our alliance . in the nearly 70 years of nato, perhaps never have we faced such a range of challenge all at once, security, humanitarian, political. nato nations, the united states, canada, france, belgium and turkey have endured heinous terrorist attacks directed or inspired by isil.
russia has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent european nation, ukraine, and engaged in provocative nature towards allies. economies have been tested by migrants leaving devastation. and a vote in the united kingdom to leave the e.u. has raised questions about the future of european integration. in this challenging moment, i want to take this opportunity to state clearly what will never change. and that is the unwavering commitment of the united states to the security and defense of europe, to our transatlantic relationship, to our commitment to our common defense. and next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the american troops arriving in the
first world war and ever since through two world wars, along cold war and the decades since, generations of americans have served here for our common security. in quiet cemeteries from france to the netherlands to italy, americans still rest where they fell. even now more than 60,000 american military personnel serve in dozens of european countries. and my point is this. in good times and in bad, europe can count on the united states, always. here in warsaw, we haven't simply reaffirmed our on bases to our security, we're moving forward with the most significant reinforcement of our collective defense any time since the cold war. first, we're strengthening nato's defense in deterrence
posture, building in our european initiative which has already increased readiness from to the black sea. the united states will deploy a battalion of american soldiers. the united kingdom will take the lead in estonia, germany, canada and latvia. this will mean some 4,000 additional nato troops in this region. moreover, the additional u.s. armored brigade will rotate through europe, including an additional 4,000 u.s. troops. meanwhile to the south, we agreed on new deterrence measures in romania and bulgaria. so nato is sending a clear message that we will defend every ally. we're also strengthening the readiness of our forces against a range of threats.
so nato's joint task force is now operational and can deploy anywhere in europe. recent progress in poland, and spain, the ballistic missile defense is online and we're coming up with new efforts to better defend against new types of threats including cyber attacks. nato is increasing our support to ukraine and our meeting at the commission, we agreed on a assistance package for ukrainian forces. the prime minister cameron, chancellor merkel, prime minister rensi and i met with the president and we reaffirm our support for territorial integrity as well as the need to continue economic reforms. thank you. i'm already getting applause.
i'm not even finished yet. [laughter] president obama: and even as the nato-russia council will meet next week, our 28 nations are united in our view that there can be no business as usual in russia until it fully implements its minsk obligation. nato will do more also to fight against terrorist networks. every ally already contributed to the campaign against isil. now the alliance will contribute aircraft to improve our reconaissance against isil. nato training of iraqi security forces will move to iraq where they can be more effective. to maintain the troops in afghanistan, 39 nations including the u.s. have committed more than 12,000 troops to nato's training mission. and in addition, some 30 nations have pledged up towards of $900
million to help sustain afghan forces, which is a strong message to afghanistan. we're bolstering our efforts on nato's southern flank. the alliance will increase our support to e.u. naval operations to stop arms traffickers and go after criminals that are exploiting desperate migrants . and we're going to do more to help partners from north africa to the middle east to georgia strengthen their own defense capacity. and finally after many years, nato has stopped the collective decline in defense spending. over the past two years, most nato members have halted cuts and begun investing more in defense. and this means defense spending across the alliance is now scheduled to increase. especially i want to commend our friends in the u.k., poland,
greece, estonia, all who along with the united states pay their full share of at least 2% g.d.p. for our collective defense. but for those of you doing the math, that means that the majority of allies are still not hitting that 2% mark, an obligation we agreed to in wales. we had a very candid conversation about this. there's a recognition of given the range of threat that we face and the capability that we need, everybody's got to step up and everybody's got to do better. so in closing, i just note that this is my final nato summit. throughout my time in office, one of my top foreign policy priority has been to strengthen our alliances, especially with nato. and as i reflect on the past eight years both the progress and the challenges, i can say with confidence that we've delivered on that promise. the united states has increased our presence here in europe. nato is as strong as nimble and
as ready as ever. and as we see it from the presence of montenegro at this summit, the door to nato membership remains open to nations that can meet our high standards. so nobody should ever doubt the resolve of this alliance to stay united and focused on the future. and just as our nations have stood together over the past hundred years, i know that we'll stay united and grow even stronger for another hundred more. with that, let me take some questions. i'm going to start with kathleen hennessy of a.p. >> thanks, mr. president. i want to specifically ask about the dallas shooting and the attacker there now we know more about the man who did the crimes. i'm wondering if you could help us understand how you describe his motives. do you consider this an act of domestic terrorism? was this a hate crime?
was this a mentally ill man with a gun? how should americans understand why that happened? and then also on the issue of political division and looking for solutions, there has been some critics that who noted that you immediately called about gun control. do you think that ensures that people treat their corners, as they think about this? of all,t obama: first it is very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter. definition, troubled, by definition, if you shoot people who pose as no threat to you, strangers, you have a troubled mind. what triggers that, what feeds
it, what sets it off, i'll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kinds of incidents. what i can say is although he may have used as an excuse his anger about previous incidents as has been indicated in the press. in no way does that represent what the overwhelming majority of americans think. americans to a large degree want
to make sure that we have a police force that is supported because they know our police officers do a really tough dangerous job. and witness the professionalism of our dallas police officers as they were being shot at. the fact that they helped to clear the area. they helped to get the fallen and the injured out of there. they were able to isolate the suspect. and you didn't have other casualties as a consequence of the police shooting back. that just gives you an indication of what a tough job they have and how well, they do it on a regular basis. so i think the danger as i said,
is that we somehow suggest that the act of a troubled individual speaks to some larger political statement across the country. it doesn't. when some white kid walks into a church and shoots a bunch of worshippers who invites him to worship with him, we don't assume somehow he's making a political statement that's relevant to the attitudes of the rest of america. and we shouldn't make those assumptions around a troubled muslim individual who is acting on their own in that same way. now, with respect to the issue
of guns, i am going to keep on talking about the fact that we cannot eliminate all racial tension in our country overnight. we are not going to be able to identify ahead of time and eliminate every madman or troubled individual who might want to do harm against innocent people. but we can make it harder for them to do so. and if you look at the pattern of death and violence and shootings that we've experienced
over the course of the last year or the last five years or the last 10 years i've said this before. we are unique among advanced countries in the scale of violence that we experience and i'm not just talking about mass shootings. i'm talking about the hundreds of people who have already been shot this year in my hometown of chicago. the ones that we just consider routine. now we may not see that issue as connected to what happened in dallas, but part of what's creating tensions between communities and the police is the fact that police have a really difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere.
and as i said before, they have a right to come home and now errorave a low margin of in terms of making decisions. so if you care about the safety of our police officers, then you can't set aside the gun issue and pretend that that's irrelevant. at the protest in dallas, one of the challenges for the dallas police department as they're being shot at is because this is an open carry state, there are a bunch of people participating in the protest who have weapons on them. imagine if you're a police officer and you're trying to sort out who is shooting at you and there a bunch of people who's got guns on them.
in minneapolis, we don't know yet what happened but we do know that there was a gun in the car that apparently was licensed. but it caused in some fashion those tragic events. so, no, we can't just ignore that and pretend that that's somehow political or the president is pushing his policy agenda. it is a contributing factor. not the sole factor, but a contributing factor to the broader tensions that arise between police and the communities where they serve. and so we have to talk about that. and as i've said before, there is a way to talk about that that
is consistent with our constitution and the second amendment. the problem is even mention of it somehow evokes this kind of polarization. and you're right. when it comes to the issue of gun safety, there is polarization. between a very intense minority and a majority of americans who think we can be doing better when it comes to gun safety but that expresses itself in stark terms when it comes to legislation in congress or in state legislatures. and that's too bad. we're going to have tackle that at some point and i'm not going to stop talking about it because if we don't talk about it, we're not going to solve these underlying problems. it's part of the problem.
>> you mentioned san bernardino and orlando and americans have been warned that similar attacks could happen here in the -- over there in the united states and obviously what happened this week in minnesota and louisiana and dallas. these are not necessarily the same types of attacks and the motivations may be different. but collectively, they're having a real impact on the american public and in that there's a real anxiety out there where people are genuinely afraid going about their daily lives doing routine things. president obama: right. >> so my questions are do you see any sort of common thread in these events? is there sort of just a new normal? is there anything that you can do about this? and what's your message to americans who are genuinely afraid because the anxiety just seems to be getting worse, not
better and these attacks keep seeming to happen in much more regularity. it wasn't a part of their experience even say a year ago. president obama: i think we have to disentangle these issues. when it comes to terrorist attacks, people are understandably concerned not just because of what's happened in the united states but what happened in brussels and what's happened in paris and what's happened in turkey and what is consistently happening in iraq and bangladesh and all around the world. and that's why the work that we've done with nato and our counterisil coalition and other partners is so vital. one of the things that's been
commented on is that as isil loses territory and the fraud of the caliphate becomes more obvious, they're going to start resorting to more traditional terrorist tactics. they can't govern. they can't deliver anything meaningful to the people whose territory they can control. the one thing they know how to do is kill. and so we're going to have to redouble our efforts in terms of intelligence, coordination, our countermessaging on extremism. working closely with muslim communities both overseas and in our own countries to make sure that we are reducing the number
of people who are inspired by their message or trying to attack us. and obviously, we have built up a huge infrastructure to try to do it. the more successful we are in iraq and syria and libya and other places where isil has gotten a stronghold, the weaker they are, the less resources they have, the less effectively they can recruit. but when individuals are willing to die and they have no conscience and compunction about killing innocent people, they are hard to detect and it means that we've got to continually up our game. having said that, i think it is important to note just the
success that we've seen in the last several weeks when it comes to rolling back al qaeda. the liberation of fallujah got a little bit lost in the news. but that's a big town. and with our support, the counterisil coalition support, the iraqi government was able to move through there quickly. they're now positioning themselves so that they can start going after mosul in syria. you're seeing progress along a pocket margin that has been used for foreign fighter flows. and so they're on their heels and we're going to stay on it. now when it comes to crime generally, i think it's just important to keep in mind that our crime rate today is substantially lower than it was
five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. over the last four or five years during the course of my presidency, violent crime in the united states is the lowest it's been since probably the 1960's. maybe before the early 1960's. there's been an incredible drop in violent crime. so that doesn't lessen, i think, people's understandable fears, if they see a video clip of somebody getting killed. but it is important to keep in perspective that in places like new york or los angeles or dallas you have seen huge drops in the murder rates. that is a testimony to smarter
policing and a range of other factors that have contributed to that. that should not -- we should never be satisfied when any innocent person is being killed. but that should not be something that is driving our anxieties relative to where we have been in the past. and with respect to the issue of police shootings. there is no doubt that the visual records that we are seeing have elevated people's consciousness about this. but as i've said before, for african-americans or latinos in the pre-smartphone age, i don't
think that people were not aware of the fact that there is evidence of racial bias in our criminal justice system. it has been well documented and it has been experienced. even before i got to the u.s. senate, when i was in the state senate in illinois, i passed legislation to try to reduce the incidence of racial profiling by collecting data. that was prompted by evidence that was taking place in certain parts of the state. and the fact we are aware of it may increase anxiety right now, and hurt and anger, but it has been said sunshine is the best disinfectant.
by seeing it, by people feeling a sense of urgency, by the larger american community realizing that, gosh, maybe this is a problem and we have seen conservative commentators began to acknowledge this is something maybe we need to work on. that promises the possibility of actually getting it done. it hurts. but if we don't diagnose this, we can't fix it. reporter: thank you, mr. president. as you come to the end of your term there is a lot of talk about your legacy. i know you may like to leave that to historians but when you look back on your presidency and consider race relations, what you hope your legacy will be?
how do you think the shootings in dallas and the high-profile shooting by police and other events will shape the way your presidency is remembered? president obama: i do want to leave legacy questions to the history books. what i can do, and maybe this is a fair response to your question, is to say how i have tried to lead the country on this issue. more than anything what i hope is that my voice has tried to get all of us as americans to understand the difficult legacy of race. to encourage people to listen to each other. to recognize that the legacy of
slavery and jim crow and discrimination did not suddenly vanish with the passage of the civil rights act or the voting rights act or the election of barack obama. that things have gotten better, substantially better, but that we have still got a lot more work to do and as that was the case with the police task force we set up that i try to encourage people to come up with practical, concrete solutions that can reduce, if not eliminate the problems of racial bias. and if my voice has been true and positive, then my hope would be that it may not fix everything right away but it
surfaces problems, it frames them, it allows us to wrestle with these issues and try to come up with practical solutions. and that perspective may lead to continued improvement so that not just malia and sasha but their children can experience the country that is more just and more united and more equal. and that is not going to happen right away. and that's ok. we plant seeds. somebody else maybe sits under the shade of the tree that we planted. i would like to think that as best as i could i have been true in speaking about these issues.
they are major trading partners. that is where goods get sent, back and forth. and it is important that neither side hardened positions in ways that ultimately do damage to their respective economies and ultimately to the world economy at a time when our world economy is still pretty wobbly in places. i want to make a further point.
i am not sure it is accurate to say that i am a huge booster of globalization. what is accurate to say is that i believe the process of globalization is here to stay. as a consequence of technology and the mobility of capital. and cargo container ships and global supply chains. and conceivably we could run back the tape to 50 years ago and see whether we could rearrange some of that process, but it is happening. it is here. and we see it every day in our lives. everybody who has got a smart phone in their pocket is seeing it. my argument has been that there are enormous benefits to be gained from that global integration.
just as there are enormous benefits to be gained from european integration, so long as we recognize that with that integration there is the danger of increased inequality, of workers having less leverage and capital having more leverage, that it threatens to leave people behind, and if we don't take steps to make sure everybody can participate in that global integration, making sure that wages are high enough, making sure that we rebuild the social compact so that pensions and health care are taken care of, making sure that communities are not completely abandoned when a factory leaves and there is an economic plan for transition.
if we do not do that effectively, then it will be a backlash. with respect to immigration, it is america's experience that immigration has been by far a net plus for our economic growth, our culture, our way of life. in america that is by necessity because unless you are a native american everybody came from someplace else. europe may not have as many of those traditions, but keep in mind one of the huge macro economic advantages that america has is we're still a relatively young country. our birthrate is not dropping off like europe's is or russia's is or china's or japan's.
that is a consequence of immigration. it is economics 101 that if you have a younger population, your growth rate will be higher. and immigrants are strivers and they work hard. they are looking to build a better life. otherwise they would not move from where they were. that is in part of our tradition and our culture and our society. huge influxes of this work we have seen in europe, that will always be a shock to the system. i think it is appropriate for europe, even as generous as it has been. i think that chancellor merkel deserves enormous credit and other european leaders that have taken and migrants deserve enormous credit. it's a strain on budget, politics, culture.
it is legitimate for them to say we have to slow this thing down. we have to manage it properly. that is why we are setting up a u.n. conference on refugees on the margins of the united nations general assembly because a few countries should not be shouldering the burden for 60 million refugees. and we have got to come up with strategies to allow people in countries that are very poor or are in the middle of a war zone enjoy some peace and prosperity. other words that otherwise the world shrinks and they want to move. it is one more reason why given the fact of global integration we have to think globally, more broadly. because our security interests, our economies are all going to
depend on the institutional arrangements that we have across boundaries. and nato is an example of a really enduring multilateral institution that helped us get through some very difficult times. but even the best of institutions have to be adopted -- adapted to new circumstances. that is true for organizations like nato. organizations like the u.n. it is true for organizations like the eu. it is true for all the architecture that has helped the world and our countries improve their standard of living and reduce overall violence between states substantially over the last several decades.
mark lander? reporter: thank you very much, mr. president. you have been scrupulous about saying you would not comment on the justice department investigation of hillary clinton's e-mail. that investigation is now closed and i hope i could ask you about some of the comments that fbi director comey he made a few days ago. president obama: you may, but i want to make sure you not wasting your question. i will continue to be scrupulous about not commenting because i think director comey could not have been more exhaustive. while we were over here or flying he was presenting to congress for hours on end. but i want to give you a chance just in case you didn't want to burn your question. reporter: i have a backup. [laughter]
maybe i could cut to the chase and ask you about a broader question. let's leave aside mrs. clinton at the moment. he did talk at the end of his presentation about how he feared there was a broader cultural issue in the state department towards the handling of classified information that troubled him. i wondered if you, since you rely on the state department to conduct your foreign policy, whether that concerns you as well? and may i ask you the question because i think it might get an interesting response? you, last may, passed a milestone in that you were president longer when the country was at war in your predecessor, george w. bush. and if you complete your presidency as you will with troops in afghanistan, syria and iraq, you will be the only two-term president in american history to have served with a country at war. given the way you ran for office and the aspiration to broaden the office how you feel about that reality.
and a second follow-up. should the american people simply resign themselves to living in a state of perpetual war, even if that war is not the all-out war we think of in the 20th century? president obama: that was an interesting question. first of all, with respect to the state department i am concerned. and the challenge we have got is primarily driven by the changing nature of how information flows. the advent of e-mail and texts and smartphones is just generating enormous amounts of data. it is hugely convenient.
it means in real-time i'm getting information that some of my predecessors might not a gotten for weeks. but what it also doing is creating this massive influx of information on a daily basis. putting enormous pressure on the department to sort through it, classify it properly, figure out what are the various points of entry because of the cyber attack risks that these systems have. knowing our adversaries are constantly trying to hack into these various systems. if you overclassified, all the advantages of this new information suddenly go away because it is taking too long to process. we have been trying to think about this in a smart way.
i think secretary kerry has a range of initiatives to try to get our arms around this. it reflects a larger problem than government. we recently -- i just recently signed a bill about freedom of information act requests built on a number of reforms we put in place. we are processing more freedom of information act requests and doing so faster than ever before. the problem is the volume of requests has skyrocketed. the amount of information that answers the requests has multiplied exponentially. across government you are seeing this problem. and it is a problem in terms of domestic affairs. it becomes an even bigger
problem when you're talking about national security issues. it is something we will have to take care of. with respect to reflections on war, when i came into office we had 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. today we have a fraction of that. they are not involved in active combat situations, but are involved in train, advise and assist situations other than the direct attacks that we launch against isil with conjunction with the iraqi government and the syrian government. in some ways i think you would recognize that our military operations today in iraq and afghanistan are fundamentally
different than the wars we were engaged in when when i came at office. but i think you are making an important point, which is when we are dealing with nonstate actors and those nonstate actors are located in countries with limited capacity, our ultimate goal is to partner with those countries so they can secure their borders and themselves eliminate these terrorist threats. but as we have seen in afghanistan, that takes time. the afghans are fighting. they are much more capable now
than they were when i came into office. but they still need support. it is really tough territory and it's a really poor country. with really low literacy rates and not much experience in things that we take for granted like logistics. we have an option of going in, taking out al qaeda, pulling out, potentially seeing a country crumble under the strains of continued terrorist activity or insurgency and then going back in. or we can try to maintain a limited partnership that allows them to continue to build their capacity over time. and selectively take our own actions against those organizations that we know are trying to attack us or our
allies. because they are nonstate actors it is very hard for us ever to get the satisfaction of macarthur and the emperor meeting and a war officially being over. aqi was defeated in the sense we were able to execute a transition to a democratically elected iraqi government. but for all of our efforts and incredible courage and bravery and sacrifice of our troops, the political structure there was still uneven. you had continued sunni resentments, continued debathification.
and as a consequence those vestiges of aqi were able to reconstitute themselves, move into syria as syria began to engage in civil war, rebuilding come back in. some have argued that this is the reason why we should have never pulled out of iraq, or we should have left some larger presence there. the problem was that we did not have an iraqi government that wanted them, unlike afghanistan for we have been invited. it is very difficult for us -- for me to put our troops in a precarious situation where they are not protected. i think what we've been trying to do, what i have been trying to do is to create an
architecture, a structure. it is not there yet, that emphasizes partnership of countries. emphasizes building up fragile states, resolving internal conflicts wherever we can, trying to do as much as we can through our local partners, preserving the possibility, the necessity, to take strikes ourselves against organizations or individuals we know are trying to kill americans or belgians or french or germans. combine that with much more effective intelligence gathering. but it becomes more of a hybrid approach to national security. and that i do think is probably
going to be something we have to continue to grapple with for years to come. the good news is that there are fewer wars between states than ever before. and almost no wars between great powers. and that is a great legacy of leaders in the united states and europe and asia after the cold war, or after the end of world war ii that built this international architecture that has worked. we should be proud of that and preserve it. but this different kind of low grade threat, one that is not an
existential threat but can do real damage and real harm to our societies, and creates the kind of fear that can cause division and political reactions. we have to do that better. we have to continually refine it. for example, the reason that i put out our announcement about the civilian casualties resulting from drone attacks. understanding that there are those who dispute the numbers. what i'm trying to do is institutionalized a system where we begin to hold ourselves accountable for this different kind of national security threat. and these different kinds of operations. and it is imperfect still. but i think we can get there and
what i can say honestly is whether we are talking about how the nsa operates or how drone strikes operate or how we are partnering with other countries or my efforts to close guantanamo. by the end of my presidency, or banning torture -- by the end of my presidency i feel confident that these efforts will be on a firmer legal footing more consistent with international law and norms, more reflective of our values and our ethics. but we will have more work to do. it is not perfect. we have to wrestle with these issues all the time. as commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world, you know, i spent a lot of time brooding over these
issues. i am not satisfied that we've got it perfect yet. i can say honestly it is better than it was when i came in office. thank you very much. [applause] >> washington journal's next. 10:00, newsmakers with republican commerce and kevin brady of texas. after that, fbi director james comey testifies on the agencies not recommended charges against hillary clinton for her use of private e-mail servers while serving as secretary of state. on today's washington journal, david wasserman discusses how donald trump and hillary clinton could have an effect on congressional races. each represents the part -- top of the parties to get. talks aboute parnes
the hillary clinton campaign and has is next note of the fbi ended its investigation into her use of a private e-mail server. and later, a look at donald trump's business dealings with >> african-americans, latinos, in the pre-smartphone age, i people were not the fact that there is evidence of racial bias in our criminal justice system. ♪ host: good morning. the president making those comments yesterday in warsaw while wrapping up a